# Policy of this board question



## mcgoospot (Jan 1, 2000)

I have undisputable evidence that a certain vendor listed for sale certain cigars when he new that the cigars that he was selling were in fact not the cigars listed. I have photograps showing the advertisement and have e-mails to and from this vendor where the vendor admits to not selling what was advertised and admits to knowing what was for sale was not the same as what was advertised. Should I post this information here or should it be left for PM. It is a well nown vendor who advertises here. Mike


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

Hey Mike, I think all of us would like to know more about this.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

i read your post on another forum about it. 

i don't own the board, so i'd ask the guy(s) that do first.

as much as you're just trying to look out for your fellow leaf lovers and feel that this should be outed... i agree it should, but if it were me, and knowing how sensitive this issue got on another forum with their mod, you might ask someone first.
it's info that needs to be put out there.

just my $.02


----------



## mcgoospot (Jan 1, 2000)

Unless and until I have board permission I will send you all of my proof by e-mail. E-mail me at [email protected] and I'll send you what I have. Mike


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

Mike, 

I read this from you on the CA board and I agree with edisonbird, let it be seen by all. This was not a simple mistake made, this was done intentionally to mislead and scam money. Seeing as how Club Stogie is based on honestly between its members, I dont think its fair to allow him to continue advertising on the board....atleast not without warning everyone first. Good catch


Adam


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

but the vendor advertises here, maybe club stogie generates a bit o' revenue from it?

i agree with you both, but i like this forum... not that 1 vendor leaving would kill a place, i don't know...

it should be put out there to be read by all, for their own safety in dealing with that vendor...

i'll just shut up, you guys are more experienced in these matters anyway.


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

I dont think any money is brought in from the vendor forum. I think Paul just put it in to keep the discussion forums clean of ads. But I agree, give Paul a heads up on it and see what he thinks...he runs the show after all.


----------



## Treyjo43 (Jun 1, 2003)

I have two questions:
1. Did any LLGs get screwed by this guy
2. Is he still posting auctions here or did he slither away

If he is still posting auctions and if someone did get screwed by him I think you should post the info, but it is ultimatly up to PDS since he is LLG Uno.


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

Since Mike's gone, Ill answer on his behalf...

he didnt post auctions, he posted in the vendor forum. and I cant comment on whether or not anyone got screwed on this particular product...I just dont know.


----------



## IHT (Dec 27, 2003)

edited


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

Guys, I think in order to maintain the integrity of the board and also keep it from turning into a pissing match, those of us who know anything about this subject should hold off until Mike and Paul give us the go ahead. Mike knows more on this subject than we do, as its just heresay from our POV. And Paul is the head honcho around here. What needs to be said will be told with time. And theres always PMing available. Just my $.02


----------



## Pablo (Oct 13, 1997)

The only revenue generated is from the banner ads on the base of every Club Stogie page and top of every Top 25 Cigar page.

Nothing is generated from the retailer forum.

I am curious to know more, as it brings up an interesting question. If someone who was advertising here was misleading people, I can;t say I would welcome them as an advertiser anymore. In fact, before accepting advertisers, I have personally used the vendor just to get my own piece of mind.

If someone does not mind PM'ing me the details, I would like to know a bit more about the situation.

Thanks for the way this is being handled, truly Club Stogieesque!


----------



## cashcow (Jul 12, 2003)

Having seen a similar thread on another board, I think the vendor in question should be given the opportunity to respond at the same time as anything is posted. This is not simply because I consider the vendor a friend whose personal integrity is beyond question but who has been there for all of us and has the most generous return policy of any vendor. I personally object to the villification which has occurred without giving him any opportunity to respond directly to the board and not just through what the "aggrieved" parties desire to post even though some of it includes purported replies from him.


----------



## WACigar (Feb 17, 2003)

Regardless of how you tell us, I want to know who you are talking about. If you know they intentionally lied, I see no reason to protect them.


----------



## DaveC (Sep 4, 2003)

bait and switch will NOT be tolerated.


----------



## shortsmoke (Dec 6, 2003)

CAshcow,I respect you standing by your buddies side but all the facts have not been posted on a public board. If all the facts become known it may be harder to stand by your friends side.


----------



## Enyafan (Oct 26, 2003)

shoot, i remember being called a liar when UPS called my house with a questionable box from a vendor. when the other guys started getting calls......well you know. i would love to get older cigars but i couldn't trust ANY vendor to provide them myself. I have to say I do believe this accusation.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

cashcow said:


> *Having seen a similar thread on another board, I think the vendor in question should be given the opportunity to respond at the same time as anything is posted. This is not simply because I consider the vendor a friend whose personal integrity is beyond question but who has been there for all of us and has the most generous return policy of any vendor. I personally object to the villification which has occurred without giving him any opportunity to respond directly to the board and not just through what the "aggrieved" parties desire to post even though some of it includes purported replies from him. *


Gordon:

I have seen the evidence and it is overwhelming.

After being confronted with this evidence, I have seen his responses on public boards and all he has done is dig himself deeper into the hole.

As a result of all this, his personal integrity is no longer beyond question.


----------



## Lamar (Dec 12, 1997)

I have one question in all of this...why would the Vendor who makes a living selling cigars willingly incriminate himself as it seems that he has? 

I do feel that all of the lovers of the leaf should be as well informed as possible and no LLG should collaborate in a conspiracy to tolerate unfair business practices. At the same time the Vendor should be made aware of the fact that concerns are being raised about the way he does business and should also be granted an opportunity to clear himself through refunds or compensation. Should this fail to occur in the presence of this overwhelming negative evidence it would make sense to withdraw the support of Club Stogie as an endorsed vendor. Just my two cents.


----------



## cashcow (Jul 12, 2003)

I absolutely guarantee. Why not give him an opportunity to respond directly on this and other boards before the lynching continues? Some of what I have read is, if not explainable, certainly open to non-nefarious interpretation and again I fail to see how Mitchell becomes responsible for what may have occurred before he bought the vintage cigars.
Gordon



Lamar said:


> *I have one question in all of this...why would the Vendor who makes a living selling cigars willingly incriminate himself as it seems that he has?
> 
> I do feel that all of the lovers of the leaf should be as well informed as possible and no LLG should collaborate in a conspiracy to tolerate unfair business practices. At the same time the Vendor should be made aware of the fact that concerns are being raised about the way he does business and should also be granted an opportunity to clear himself through refunds or compensation. Should this fail to occur in the presence of this overwhelming negative evidence it would make sense to withdraw the support of Club Stogie as an endorsed vendor. Just my two cents. *


----------



## AAlmeter (Dec 31, 1999)

He did respond, without actually answering any of the questions, on other boards. I think the fact that he still has the cigars up for sale, with the false advertising, speaks for his true motives. 

Becasue of the many people who have used him in the past and who stick up for his integrity in past purchases, I think it could initially have been excused as an honest mistake on his part...but then he tried to pass his mistake on to the consumer, and continues to do so. I am very interested in knowing what his excuse for this will be come Feb.


----------



## Pablo (Oct 13, 1997)

I've seen the details, and PM'd Mcgoospot that I certainly have no problems with the details being brought forward in a thread.

I think the retailer review forum is in fact a perfect spot for this.


----------



## mcgoospot (Jan 1, 2000)

Cashcow and Lamar-what exactly is there to explain given the above facts. Check ot the links at cigarweekly or cigaraficionado. All of the allegations and admissions are contained in those posts. He knew, before he sold the cigars to Awesome1 that they were not and COULD not be 1996 Especialidads. For him to advertise the cigars as such and sell them as such when he ad,mits that he didn't have humidor #80 which he was purporting to sell these cigars from is FRAUD. He has been given every opportunity to answer these questions. The problem is that with what he has already admitted to, credibility is now gone. as a result he has taKEN THE "i NEED TO RESEARCH THIS MATTER WHILE IN cUBA AND WILL REPORT IN mARCH"-come on!!!! Delay and hope it goes away.


----------



## cashcow (Jul 12, 2003)

I do not know what was represented with regard to the humidor #80 or what could explain a misrepresentation in that regard (other than a mistake) but do know absolutely that there qwere additional 1996 Salamones that were made and the fact that the Wolters humidored cigars were cut to fit the humidors but others uncut were sold in bundles in Cuba and some are still in stock at Partagas although are not kept out in open stock. I smoked some with Abel several years ago which he had in his own storage.


----------



## mcgoospot (Jan 1, 2000)

And if Mo had listed them as such would have been OK. Instead he clearly posted pictures of the real 1996s, listed them for sale as real 1996s, listed them for sale in humidor #80 (which he didn't have and if what cashcow says is true, and they cme in bundles, would make it more fraudulant since he knew they didn't even come in Humidors at all much less #80 of 100), and insisted they were real AFTER Lusi/Brit told him in July that they were fake (not that Mo clearly didn't know this before hand)>


----------



## cashcow (Jul 12, 2003)

I am not going to post anything more on this thread. Clearly the cigars were misrepresented, if what has been related here occurred. Clearly Mitchell should have left his ego out of it and simply stated that the mistake was made. We ALL have egos, We ALL have been in situations where we fail to acknowledge improprities immediately because we have felt backed into a corner or that we have been inappropriately personally attacked. OK. I will not further contribute to the continuation of what has now turned into bashing of my friend whose integrity remains unquestionable so far as I am concerned but whose ego and or temper perhaps got the better of him.


----------



## mcgoospot (Jan 1, 2000)

Don't want to beat a dead horse Gordon, but if the cigars were clearly "misrepresented" then how can you still consider him ethical and trustworthy?


----------



## cashcow (Jul 12, 2003)

*new thread*

Anybody got some good recipes for tenderized horsemeat? I understand in France it is considered a delicacy and is sweeter than beef.


----------



## Matt R (Dec 12, 1997)

The pictures shown next to cigars for sale at online vendors being different from the cigars actually sold does not bother me, I can find that on many other vendor's sites. The wording that was used, well, that was misleading and that upsets me. I don't see how this can be corrected by Mitchell, especially in the eyes of the folks who have been out to get him from years ago. That being said, he is a friend and I will give him the benefit of the doubt, just like I would any of you that I consider a friend, until he has completed his "research". That may not sit well with some of you and I hope it doesn't hurt my relationship with anyone who is on the path to taking Mitchell down. But, it is what I would do for any of you, who I feel I have more than just an internet relationship with. This sounds really bad, presented the way it has been here and elsewhere, but weighing it against some of the good things that I know about this vendor, I have a hard time not allowing a legitimate rebutal before I pass final judgement. This is my last public post on the matter here or anywhere else.


----------



## robmcd (Apr 9, 2002)

Matt R said:


> This is my last public post on the matter here or anywhere else.


matt- i'll take that bet.

i posted this elsewhere so i apologize if you've read it already... i don't feel like working right now so this gives me a chance to screw off for a little while. i've read some extreme views on this topic and, without a doubt, the 'truth' lies somewhere between the extremes. this discussion makes me think of kurosawa's classic film _rashomon_. if you haven't seen the movie i highly recommend it... but the ideas can taken from a good review of the movie, which you can get with a google search. here's one:

*The story told by Rashomon is both surprisingly simple and deceptively complex. The central tale, which tells of the rape of a woman (Machiko Kyo) and the murder of a man (Masayuki Mori), possibly by a bandit (Toshiro Mifune), is presented entirely in flashbacks from the perspectives of four narrators. The framing portions of the movie transpire at Kyoto's crumbling Rashomon gate, where several people seek shelter from a pelting rain storm and discuss the recent crime, which has shocked the region. One of the men, a woodcutter (Takashi Shimura), was a witness to the events, and, with the help of a priest (Minoru Chiaki), he puzzles over what really happened, and what such a horrible occurrence says about human nature.

In each of the four versions of the story, the characters are the same, as are many of the details. But much is different, as well. In the first account, that of the bandit, the criminal accepts culpability for the murder but refutes the charge of rape, saying that it was an act of mutual consent. The woman's story affirms that the bandit attacked her, but indicates that she may have been the murderess. The dead man's tale (told through a medium) claims rape and suicide. The only "impartial" witness, the woodcutter, weaves a story that intertwines elements of the other three, leaving the viewer wondering if he truly saw anything at all.

Many people watch Rashomon with the intent of piecing together a picture of what really occurred. However, the accounts are so divergent that such an approach seems doomed to futility. Rashomon isn't about determining a chronology of what happened in the woods. It's not about culpability or innocence. Instead, it focuses on something far more profound and thought-provoking: the inability of any one man to know the truth, no matter how clearly he thinks he sees things. Perspective distorts reality and makes the absolute truth unknowable.

All of the narrators in Rashomon tell compelling and believable stories, but, for a variety of reasons, each of them must be deemed unreliable. It's impossible to determine to what degree their versions are fabrications, and how many discrepancies are the result of legitimate differences in points-of-view. It's said that four witnesses to an accident will all offer different accounts of the same event, but there are things in Rashomon (namely, that each of the three participants names himself or herself as the murderer) that cannot be explained away on this basis***. And the impressions of the "impartial" observer further muddy the waters, because, despite his protestations that he doesn't lie, we trust his tale the least.

In the end, we are left recognizing only one thing: that there is no such thing as an objective truth. It is a grail to be sought after, but which will never be found, only approximated. Kurosawa's most brilliant move in Rashomon is never to reveal what really happened. We are left to make our own deductions. Every time I watch the film, I come away with a slightly different opinion of what transpired in the woods. But not knowing remains a source of fascination, not one of frustration, and therein lies Kurosawa's greatest achievement. *

*** another reviewer of the movie states: * Rashomon is not a film about the relativity of truth, however; it is about the kinds of lies people will tell to protect their self-image, the most important possession a man believes he has. * this is what the 1st reviewer is alluding to in this statement he brushes over a bit.

see, reviewers can't even agree on what to take from this movie!! is that great or what? i think both reviewers have it basically correct: *Perspective distorts reality and makes the absolute truth unknowable, one can only approximate it AND people will protect their self-image, the most important possession a man believes he has*.

thank you for your time... back to work.


----------



## ucmba (Sep 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by cashcow _*Clearly the cigars were misrepresented, if what has been related here occurred. Clearly Mitchell should have left his ego out of it and simply stated that the mistake was made.*


I agree 100% with you on this! Perhaps you (Gordon) can convince him (MO) to take that route now, publicly, versus have this drag on until the conclusion of his "report" a few months anon, at which time all of these threads will be renewed and if he doesn't admit his culpability at that time, then this will invariably continue (though he seems to be enjoying it as it is, according to him, increasing sales)?

-Ron


----------



## Lusi (Jan 1, 2000)

> I am not going to post anything more on this thread. Clearly the cigars were misrepresented, if what has been related here occurred. Clearly Mitchell should have left his ego out of it and simply stated that the mistake was made. We ALL have egos, We ALL have been in situations where we fail to acknowledge improprities immediately because we have felt backed into a corner or that we have been inappropriately personally attacked. OK. I will not further contribute to the continuation of what has now turned into bashing of my friend whose integrity remains unquestionable so far as I am concerned but whose ego and or temper perhaps got the better of him.


Gordon, You know that I admire your loyalty to a friend; I'd like to have you covering my back the next time I screw up.

Unfortunately, however, your passionate defense of your friend forces you to either A) overlook or B) distort the facts in this case.

A) What you overlook (posted in part on another thread):

1) Mitchell indeed misrepresented the cigars on his site and in his Dec 5, 03 newsletter

2) Mitchell KNOWINGLY sold the cigars as being from numbered humidors when he knew all along that they were not. This was MOST DEFINTITELY NOT A CLERICAL ERROR. Mitchell told me over the phone that the cigars he was selling me were from numbered humidors, when he knew they weren't.

3) When questions were raised politely, Mitchell REPEATEDLY insisted that the cigars were of "perfect provenance" and were "just as they had been represented to be." I have these assertions in writing.

4) Mitchell was aware of Christoph Wolters' verdict that the cigars he (Mitchell) was selling were not his (i.e., Wolters') cigars and yet continued to sell them as such.

These are not issues that can be dismissed as matters of ego or a bad day at the office or a mix up on the part of Mitchell's staff. There is fraudulent behavior here, repeated fraudulent behavior.

B) What you distort:

1) Any criticism of your friend, no matter how legitimate, becomes a "bashing," a "lynching." Because you overlook what I've outlined in "A" above, you assume those of us who are critical of Mitchell's business practices here are trying to "bash" him, when, actually, we're just stating the bare facts of what transpired.

As UCMBA mentioned in a prior post, let's hope Mitchell will acknowledge what really happened--and not some "clerical error" after the fact. Then we can all put this thing behind us and move on.


----------



## 5by50 (Jan 1, 2000)

*GREAT POST*

Keep it simple by taking the emotion out of it and just list the facts. When you do it seems crystal clear to me what happened. I will stick with THE ROCK for my orders.............


----------



## Che (Dec 4, 2003)

This could of all gone away had Mo just said it was an error, for *what ever* reason, refunded the money or maybe the buyer would have been satisfied with a reasonable or should I say truthful explanation, and kept the product. Instead Mitchell refuses to admit it and is making a case that is surpassing the weapons of mass destruction issue by continuing to deny the inevitable. Anyone who is his friend should quickly tell him to do the right thing here.


----------



## Da Klugs (Jan 8, 2005)

Interesting and funny if you know about "the joint venture". Good example of not burning bridges.


----------



## ResIpsa (Mar 8, 2006)

interesting read, given the state of their relationship today.


----------



## RPB67 (Mar 26, 2005)

Amazing what the mighty dollar can do to you.


----------



## Gordie (Dec 31, 2005)

*Re: new thread*



cashcow said:


> Anybody got some good recipes for tenderized horsemeat? I understand in France it is considered a delicacy and is sweeter than beef.


The Italians make Braciole.


----------



## carni (Jan 18, 2007)

This is some heavy stuff. Mess with a gorilla...this guy is getting the whole pack. This guy obviously made the wrong decision.


----------



## burninator (Jul 11, 2006)

I've no idea what's going on here, but it sounds like there might have been a happy ending, after all.


----------



## Jungle_Rat (Feb 19, 2006)

ResIpsa said:


> interesting read, given the state of their relationship today.


And the state of the "relationship" is ?

For a new guy it was an interesting read,I'm just curious to know what the final outcome was.Who/what/where....etc.


----------



## bonggoy (Mar 9, 2006)

Jungle_Rat said:


> And the state of the "relationship" is ?
> 
> For a new guy it was an interesting read,I'm just curious to know what the final outcome was.Who/what/where....etc.


They opened an LCDH in Germany. Wolters was also at MO's wedding.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2007)

What exactly was the point of bumping this thread?


----------



## Jungle_Rat (Feb 19, 2006)

bonggoy said:


> They opened an LCDH in Germany. Wolters was also at MO's wedding.


Ah,thank you.

Da Klugs was spot on, I guess it really is a good example of not burning your bridges.


----------



## bonggoy (Mar 9, 2006)

cabinetsticker said:


> What exactly was the point of bumping this thread?


I guess this:

_Interesting and funny if you know about "the joint venture". Good example of not burning bridges._


----------



## kjd2121 (Jul 13, 2006)

burninator said:


> I've no idea what's going on here, but it sounds like there might have been a happy ending, after all.


I'll be expecting a Happy Ending on Valentine's Day - :r


----------



## burninator (Jul 11, 2006)

kjd2121 said:


> I'll be expecting a Happy Ending on Valentine's Day - :r


Sorry, I've already got plans. Consider giving yourself a stranger, instead.


----------



## hamncheese (Oct 5, 2006)

Wow I totally forgot about this. Pretty ironic.


----------



## mcgoospot (Jan 1, 2000)

Guys, to alleviate some fears XXX is not the vendor in question, nor is xxxxxxxxxxx. This vendor is based out of the UK. I think that should be enough info as my original post was over three years ago and I know of no similar incidents since then.


----------

